Urbanism, Neighborhood Context, and Social Networks

Abstract

Theories of urbanism suggest that the urban context erodes individuals’ strong social ties with friends and family. Recent research has narrowed focus to the neighborhood context, emphasizing how localized structural disadvantage affects community-level cohesion and social capital. In this paper, we argue that neighborhood context also shapes social ties with friends and family– particularly for community-dwelling seniors. We hypothesize that neighborhood disadvantage, residential instability, and disorder restrict residents’ abilities to cultivate close relationships with neighbors and non-neighbor friends and family. Using data from the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP), we find that older adults who live in disadvantaged neighborhoods have smaller social networks. Neighborhood disadvantage is also associated with less close network ties and less frequent interaction – but only among men. Furthermore, residents of disordered neighborhoods have smaller networks and weaker ties. We urge scholars to pay greater attention to how neighborhood context contributes to disparities in network-based access to resources.

Eclipsing Community? Neighborhood Disadvantage, Social Mechanisms, and Neighborly Attitudes and Behaviors

“…Inherent in traditional ecological research is the notion that residents’ local social ties play an important role in determining the quality of community life (Kasarda and Janowitz ; Wirth ). Indeed, people living in disadvantaged neighborhoods are often members of fragmented personal networks with few friends residing nearby (Cornwell and Behler ; Ross and Jang ; Sampson and Groves ), which should have implications for neighborly perceptions and attitudes (Boessen et al. ; Lee et al.…”

“…; Sampson ; Swaroop and Morenoff ). Much of this work is grounded in “neighborhood effects” research that draws upon social disorganization reasoning to gauge how neighborhoods rife with concentrated disadvantage (e.g., poverty, unemployment, female‐headed families) weaken residential satisfaction and the formation of neighborly ties (Cornwell and Behler ; Hipp ; Swaroop and Morenoff ). Yet, this seemingly straightforward association has been shown to be more nuanced in some urban areas where residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods regularly interact and help one another, presumably to address such problems as crime, disorder, and joblessness (Stack ; Swaroop and Morenoff ; Taylor ).…”

Household Disorder, Network Ties, and Social Support in Later Life

“…More recently, social disorganization theory suggests that features of neighborhood disorder (e.g., broken windows, abandoned buildings, litter, graffiti) reflect a lack of neighborhood cohesion and informal control (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). At the same time, there is evidence that neighborhood disorder erodes neighborhood-level social connectedness, capital, and support (Krause, 1993;Ross, Mirowsky, & Pribesh, 2002;Steenbeek & Hipp, 2011) and reduces individuals' abilities to form and maintain personal network ties (York Cornwell & Behler, 2015). My central argument is that the interaction between physical features and social factors that has been observed at the neighborhood level also occurs within the household context.…”

Assessing Neighborhood Satisfaction and Social Capital in a Multi-Cultural Setting of an Abu Dhabi Neighborhood

“…Effective planning and design of open spaces in urban areas can add significant value to its community. It can enhance the sense of community, social cohesion, and livability [1,2], and help improve people's physiology (heart rate and nerve activity) while reducing negative emotions and anxiety [3]. However, most literature neglects public areas such as plazas, linear corridors, and nature assets [4], especially since studies report that compactness and densification can create a more sustainable environment [5].…”